Lawyers spar in court in N.J. sports betting lawsuit

By JOHN BRENNAN

staff writer |

The Record

A federal judge will rule by Friday on a key point in the lawsuit by the NCAA and four sports leagues challenging New Jersey’s plan to allow sports betting at Atlantic City casinos and the state’s racetracks.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp heard more than an hour of oral argument about whether the leagues have legal standing to challenge New Jersey over sports betting.

The state’s case was argued by Ted Olson, who once served as the nation’s solicitor general.

The leagues filed in suit in August, citing a 20-year-old federal law that bans sports betting in 46 states – including New Jersey. Governor Christie signed a sports-betting bill into law earlier this year, then challenged those who objected to sue him.

As part of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, Congress granted the leagues the right to try to sue to stop any of those 46 states from offering sports betting. But Olson noted that the leagues also must show they would be harmed by the New Jersey law.

Attorney Jeffrey Mishkin, representing the leagues, cited precedents that set the relatively low bar of simply showing that the leagues have a “personal stake” in the matter. Mishkin said that it is clear that the leagues would suffer from a negative perception by many fans should extensive sports betting be legal beyond Nevada.

Shipp pointed to the state’s allegations that the leagues’ support of fantasy sports play – including games involving money – makes their opposition to legalized sports betting hypocritical. But Mishkin dismissed the claim, saying: “It’s the difference between playing Monopoly, and being in the real estate market.”

Olson countered citing previous federal court rulings he said established a higher threshold for standing, that plaintiffs must show “identifiable, concrete injury.” He also said the bar is especially high in cases like this one, where a judge will be asked to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a law.

Most of the facts of the case are not in dispute. The question is whether the federal 1992 law is constitutional. New Jersey contends that Congress can’t grant some states the right to raise revenues by offering sports betting while barring others from doing so; it is also questioning Congress’ right to regulate intrastate commerce, such as New Jersey sports betting.

The two sides painted starkly different pictures of the impact of New Jersey being allowed to offer the wagering.

Olson contended that it would simply mean that the state would be able to regulate gambling that already exists in illegal form, offering consumers legal protections while also producing tax dollars. But Mishkin countered that illegal bookies would be able to keep their customer base, with state-sponsored betting leading to a significant influx of new bettors once the stigma of illegality was removed.

Olson is best-known for being on the winning side of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 that decided the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. As solicitor general, he served as the top trial lawyer for the federal government, arguing its cases before the Supreme Court.

The state has agreed to a moratorium on granting sports betting licenses until Jan. 9; the thoroughbred horsemen association said it wants to offer wagering at Monmouth Park as soon as possible.

Shipp has given the federal government until Jan. 20 to intervene in the case, since the state is challenging a federal law.

Lawyers spar in court in N.J. sports betting lawsuit

By JOHN BRENNAN

staff writer |

The Record

A federal judge will rule by Friday on a key point in the lawsuit by the NCAA and four sports leagues challenging New Jersey’s plan to allow sports betting at Atlantic City casinos and the state’s racetracks.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp heard more than an hour of oral argument about whether the leagues have legal standing to challenge New Jersey over sports betting.

The state’s case was argued by Ted Olson, who once served as the nation’s solicitor general.

The leagues filed in suit in August, citing a 20-year-old federal law that bans sports betting in 46 states – including New Jersey. Governor Christie signed a sports-betting bill into law earlier this year, then challenged those who objected to sue him.

As part of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, Congress granted the leagues the right to try to sue to stop any of those 46 states from offering sports betting. But Olson noted that the leagues also must show they would be harmed by the New Jersey law.

Attorney Jeffrey Mishkin, representing the leagues, cited precedents that set the relatively low bar of simply showing that the leagues have a “personal stake” in the matter. Mishkin said that it is clear that the leagues would suffer from a negative perception by many fans should extensive sports betting be legal beyond Nevada.

Shipp pointed to the state’s allegations that the leagues’ support of fantasy sports play – including games involving money – makes their opposition to legalized sports betting hypocritical. But Mishkin dismissed the claim, saying: “It’s the difference between playing Monopoly, and being in the real estate market.”

Olson countered citing previous federal court rulings he said established a higher threshold for standing, that plaintiffs must show “identifiable, concrete injury.” He also said the bar is especially high in cases like this one, where a judge will be asked to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a law.

Most of the facts of the case are not in dispute. The question is whether the federal 1992 law is constitutional. New Jersey contends that Congress can’t grant some states the right to raise revenues by offering sports betting while barring others from doing so; it is also questioning Congress’ right to regulate intrastate commerce, such as New Jersey sports betting.

The two sides painted starkly different pictures of the impact of New Jersey being allowed to offer the wagering.

Olson contended that it would simply mean that the state would be able to regulate gambling that already exists in illegal form, offering consumers legal protections while also producing tax dollars. But Mishkin countered that illegal bookies would be able to keep their customer base, with state-sponsored betting leading to a significant influx of new bettors once the stigma of illegality was removed.

Olson is best-known for being on the winning side of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 that decided the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. As solicitor general, he served as the top trial lawyer for the federal government, arguing its cases before the Supreme Court.

The state has agreed to a moratorium on granting sports betting licenses until Jan. 9; the thoroughbred horsemen association said it wants to offer wagering at Monmouth Park as soon as possible.

Shipp has given the federal government until Jan. 20 to intervene in the case, since the state is challenging a federal law.